Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Was Watch Dogs For PC Handicapped On Purpose?

Soulskill posted about 5 months ago | from the following-the-console-dollars dept.

Graphics 215

Advocatus Diaboli writes: Many PC gamers were disappointed that Ubisoft's latest AAA game, Watch_Dogs, did not look as nice as when displayed at E3 in 2012. But this week a modder discovered that code to improve the game's graphics on the PC is still buried within the released game, and can be turned back on without difficulty or performance hits. Ubisoft has yet to answer whether (or why) their PC release was deliberately handicapped. Gaming commentator Total Biscuit has a video explaining the controversy.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Friends dont let Friends buy Ubisoft (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47266821)

Nuff said.

Re:Friends dont let Friends buy Ubisoft - Agreed (2)

Grog6 (85859) | about 5 months ago | (#47267421)

I've been watching this; it looks like a cool game.

I noticed the e3 trailer was completely different than the reviews, even on good video setups.

I have learned long ago not to buy a game until you see what you're getting. :)

Now that someone has found how to restore the original graphics, seeing how Ubisoft responds will pretty much determine their future, pretty much. :) (At least for me, anyway.)

A C&D about now would really make my day, lol; I've come to hate those pricks.

Hey, my two 7970's in crossfire fixes the texture pop in Rage at high res; I bet it would run this. :)

Now to wait for the next "patch". :->

Re:Friends dont let Friends buy Ubisoft (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 5 months ago | (#47267817)

Nuff said.

Well, you say that, but Heroes of Might and Magic VI was actually pretty fun.

Controversy? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47266831)

Really?

Also... AAA? define.

Re:Controversy? (1)

dunkindave (1801608) | about 5 months ago | (#47266887)

Anti-Aircraft Adventure, or was it Alternative Arcade Action, or was it...

Damn, where is that 80 page FBI acronym cheat sheet when I need it.

Re:Controversy? (5, Informative)

click2005 (921437) | about 5 months ago | (#47266929)

AAA - A game title that cost more to market and push down people's throats than the cost to actually make it. You can tell these games because theres more trailers, teasers and cut-scenes leaked than actual footage.

Analogy: A turd in a very pretty & shiny box.

Re:Controversy? (4, Insightful)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 5 months ago | (#47267033)

Grand Theft Auto V cost $150M to develop and $150M to market. The GTA games have been the benchmark of AAA games for almost 15 years.

I have never heard anyone describe any of them as turds in a pretty box.

Re:Controversy? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47267085)

Those figures are a pack of lies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Controversy? (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 5 months ago | (#47267311)

Those numbers come from industry analysts, not Rockstar or Take Two.

Re: Controversy? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47267347)

I genuinely feel sorry for you if you believe GTA V is a good game. It's an impressive experiment in attempting to create an open world, but as a game it's trudging, boring and ultimately confining. The actual missions in the game have so little creativity, you have to wonder if any part of the game *wasn't* designed by committee.

If GTA V is supposed to represent a "standard" of good games (meaning games that are actually fun to play), then good games are in danger of going extinct.

Re: Controversy? (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 5 months ago | (#47267467)

It's an impressive experiment in attempting to create an open world, but as a game it's trudging, boring and ultimately confining. The actual missions in the game have so little creativity, you have to wonder if any part of the game *wasn't* designed by committee.

But, uh, that's the same as GTA3 and GTA4.

Re: Controversy? (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 5 months ago | (#47267677)

If you think GTA3 and GTA5 are the same game, you're sadly mistaken.

Re: Controversy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47268311)

Obviously they aren't the same game, but they suck the same. Vice City and San Andreas were the only fun GTA games.

Re: Controversy? (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 5 months ago | (#47267485)

I only played about 10 hours of it and I agree with a lot of your criticisms. But as far as critical and user acclaim, as recorded by metacritic, GTA V is right near the top of the heap.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/grand-theft-auto-v

Re: Controversy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47268015)

I only played about 10 hours of it and I agree with a lot of your criticisms. But as far as critical and user acclaim, as recorded by metacritic, GTA V is right near the top of the heap.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/grand-theft-auto-v

Which should give you some idea of how corrupt most game review publishers are. To call them professional puffery agencies is putting it mildly.

Reviewers for Watch_Dogs, for example, received a Nexus 7, courtesy of Ubisoft. No corruption there...

Re: Controversy? (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 5 months ago | (#47268063)

That's why I mentioned the user scores as well.

Re:Controversy? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 months ago | (#47268045)

Maybe 'cause they buy the turd on Steam?

Re:Controversy? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47268271)

I regularly visit my local ABC Supermarket to buy my groceries. They have their own as well as third party brands available to purchase. This works for me, and as such, I am a part of their rewards program.

ABC Supermarket signs a deal to offer one of XYZ Supermarket's products. I decide to try it out. However on the way out the door after purchasing an XYZ Branded product, I am grabbed by employees of the XYZ Supermarket, thown into the back of an XYZ branded Van, and driven to the XYZ Store. They then walk me to the counter, put a pen in my hand, and make me sign up for their rewards program. Once I do, only then am I allowed to use the XYZ product.

Next time I decide to drive myself to XYZ store to save myself the hassle of being dragged there from ABC. Unfortunately the employees don't recognise my rewards card, and have blank looks when asked about the product. A manager approaches me, and tells me that I have to first go to the ABC store, pick up the product, and THEN come back to the XYZ store before they will allow me to use it.

This is what it's like buying Ubisoft Products through Steam.

Re:Controversy? (2)

mjwx (966435) | about 5 months ago | (#47268329)

Grand Theft Auto V cost $150M to develop and $150M to market. The GTA games have been the benchmark of AAA games for almost 15 years.

I have never heard anyone describe any of them as turds in a pretty box.

Erm, GTA has not been the benchmark for AAA games by a long shot. Graphically they fall well short (well they are designed for consoles) but make up for it by having a good sense of humour... Well up until GTA IV, that was a giant turd in a box.

Saints Row The Third was a better GTA than GTA.

Re:Controversy? (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 5 months ago | (#47267127)

Really?

Also... AAA? define.

Anti-Abortion Activist

Re:Controversy? (1)

desdinova 216 (2000908) | about 5 months ago | (#47267229)

that's odd, I always thought AAA as either an organization that provides roadside assistance and Travel services, or the top level of Baseball's minor leagues

Re:Controversy? (2, Informative)

Mashiki (184564) | about 5 months ago | (#47267285)

Also... AAA? define.

Seriously? You're on a geek based site, and you don't know. How I long for the days when /. had people who worked in the industry actually posting here. Remember them? Wasn't that long ago when developers from those studios would actually reply...oh well.

Re:Controversy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47267365)

That was before the developers were all replaced by identical worker units executing MBA pseudo-code.

Re:Controversy? (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 5 months ago | (#47268151)

That was before the developers were all replaced by identical worker units executing MBA pseudo-code.

I better let my friends at Bioware Edmonton know this, they'll be impressed to know that they've been replaced by identical worker units. Actually it might explain the droid-like behaviors and why they always plug into a wall socket when I fly out west to visit them.

Re:Controversy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47267461)

And I for one dont fucking care because games these days are almost to a man, utterly forgettable at best or turds at worst.

Go outside and kick a football. It's more fun and better for you.

Re: Controversy? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47267549)

You throw a football.

Throw-in (1)

tepples (727027) | about 5 months ago | (#47267605)

You throw a football.

True. Just as in basketball, a ball that goes out of bounds past the sideline is inbounded with a throw-in [wikipedia.org] . But the rest of the time, you kick a football with your foot (or headbutt it with your head).

Re: Controversy? (1, Insightful)

Stormwatch (703920) | about 5 months ago | (#47267663)

You mean a handegg.

Re: Controversy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47268025)

I'm no expert, but I think that punting counts as kicking.

Re:Controversy? (2, Informative)

jxander (2605655) | about 5 months ago | (#47267429)

Originally it was based on school letter grades. An "A" game was one without any flaws. A game rated "AAA" not only was free of flaws or defects, but pushed the boundaries of what games could accomplish. They elevated their genres to new heights or defined entire new ones.

That definition has been long forgotten however. These days, AAA Game just means "massive budget." People are throwing millions and millions and millions at AAA games. With that kind of money at stake, studios can't afford to be creative or take risks. So AAA games are now risk-adverse "follow the leader" operations, with massive ad campaigns to ensure maximum profits. Often released annually with incremental changes (Madden, CoD, BF, etc) and sponsored by Mountain Dew, Doritos, or whatever other company is willing to throw $$$ at them.

Re:Controversy? (5, Informative)

mjwx (966435) | about 5 months ago | (#47268373)

Originally it was based on school letter grades. An "A" game was one without any flaws. A game rated "AAA" not only was free of flaws or defects, but pushed the boundaries of what games could accomplish. They elevated their genres to new heights or defined entire new ones.

That definition has been long forgotten however. These days, AAA Game just means "massive budget." People are throwing millions and millions and millions at AAA games. With that kind of money at stake, studios can't afford to be creative or take risks. So AAA games are now risk-adverse "follow the leader" operations, with massive ad campaigns to ensure maximum profits. Often released annually with incremental changes (Madden, CoD, BF, etc) and sponsored by Mountain Dew, Doritos, or whatever other company is willing to throw $$$ at them.

AAA always referred to budget. I dont remember any of the classics that pushed boundaries like System Shock being called AAA back in the day.

The term comes from the finance industry, not education. A Triple A credit rating means that you can raise significant capital for a project. A AAA game is a game that has a significant amount of money behind it.

They found a way to mess up the roads in chicago (0)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 5 months ago | (#47266845)

They found a way to mess up the roads in chicago so why even they to max out on the pc when you just need to do the min to get the game out.

Re:They found a way to mess up the roads in chicag (0)

nschubach (922175) | about 5 months ago | (#47267391)

They found a way to mess up the roads in chicago

Let's be honest here... Chicago-ans are already doing that all by themselves.

Re:They found a way to mess up the roads in chicag (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47267413)

Have you actually been to Chicago? The roads are pretty messed up.

Of course it was! (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 5 months ago | (#47266847)

Why is this even a question? The PC version included the "Uplay" launcher/malware/crash utility.

Platform makers (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47266855)

They probably got paid off or threatened by console makers.

Blur (4, Informative)

BradleyUffner (103496) | about 5 months ago | (#47266861)

Play the game for 5 minutes with the depth of field effect and you will see why that was disabled; the game is unplayable that way. As for the other stuff; no idea.

Re:Blur (4, Interesting)

Travis Mansbridge (830557) | about 5 months ago | (#47267019)

In any game, depth-of-field looks amazing for screenshots but in order to work the camera has to refocus on whatever is in the center of the screen, so focus can change rapidly and drastically as you swing your view around, and anything the player might be looking at that's not in the center is going to be out-of-focus. The only way to really pull it off would be something like eye-tracking to find what the player is actually looking at and bring that into focus. Or design a 2-D-ish game where all the action is guaranteed to happen at the same depth.

Re:Blur (5, Interesting)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about 5 months ago | (#47267269)

Depth of field is an artistic tool used by photographers to direct the viewer's gaze. It has a reputation for being a mark of a pro photographer because

The larger the camera's format, the shallower the depth of field for a given aperture. Depth of field control is extremely difficult on a cell phone camera.
More expensive pro lenses, such as the "Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Lens " ($2396) lens have wider apertures than a (sort of, kind of) similar consumer lens such as the "Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED AF-S DX" ($159)

However. there are photographers, such as Ansel Adams who used "camera movements" to maximize depth of field, as well as photo journalists who consider deep depths of field to be an important tool for objectivity and for telling narratives.

A pro photographer uses depth of field as a compositional element. A game's graphics engine would have to be programmed to use depth of field to direct the player's gaze to fit the narrative.. A constant shallowness is likely to interfere with game play.

(Back in the old days, fog was used to obscure draw distance limitations. It sometimes looked decent, but in real life, piloting an aircraft through dense fog is harder than piloting through clear skies...)

Re:Blur (2, Informative)

Cowclops (630818) | about 5 months ago | (#47267453)

While its true that cameras with large sensors tend to have shallower depth of field, its actually a side effect of needing to use longer focal length lenses to get the same field of view. You might need 70mm on a 35mm camera to frame a subject for a portrait but only 12mm on a point and shoot to frame the same subject. Longer focal length means bigger actual lens aperture for the same f-stop, and thats what decreases depth of field.

For example, a 35mm f/2 lens on a full frame camera will have the same depth of field as a 35mm f/2 lens on a 2/3" CCD point and shoot, but the 35mm on a full frame camera is going to be a standard angle and 35mm on the point and shoot is going to be considerable telephoto.

People generally don't use the same range of focal lengths on full frame cameras as they do on tiny sensor point and shoots (or cell phones) so thats why it seems like its easier to achieve the shallower depth of field with a bigger imager.

Re:Blur (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about 5 months ago | (#47267949)

Hmm-- crop factor for a 2/3 inch sensor is 3.6, so a 35mm lens on a 2/3 would roughly be equivalent to 125 mm-- short telephoto, good for headshots from say 6-7 feet away.
Using Depth of Field Master [dofmaster.com]
an f/2/ 125mm lens, at 6 ft, has a depth of field of 0.08 ft. (Canon5D Mark III)
an f/2 35 mm, lens, at 6 ft has a depth of field of 0.28 ft (Fujifilm X10, though it's actually limited to 28mm @ f/2.8)

So if you want razor thin depth of field, best go with full frame or larger, assuming that the lenses are available-- 200 mm f2 lens can be had, but they are rather expensive.

Re:Blur (1)

Mal-2 (675116) | about 5 months ago | (#47268119)

While its true that cameras with large sensors tend to have shallower depth of field, its actually a side effect of needing to use longer focal length lenses to get the same field of view. You might need 70mm on a 35mm camera to frame a subject for a portrait but only 12mm on a point and shoot to frame the same subject. Longer focal length means bigger actual lens aperture for the same f-stop, and thats what decreases depth of field.

For example, a 35mm f/2 lens on a full frame camera will have the same depth of field as a 35mm f/2 lens on a 2/3" CCD point and shoot, but the 35mm on a full frame camera is going to be a standard angle and 35mm on the point and shoot is going to be considerable telephoto.

People generally don't use the same range of focal lengths on full frame cameras as they do on tiny sensor point and shoots (or cell phones) so thats why it seems like its easier to achieve the shallower depth of field with a bigger imager.

This is not quite true. The larger formats come with larger acceptable circles of confusion [wikipedia.org] as well, since it is expected they will be enlarged less. The basic premise is correct, but it's not straight linear. A 50 mm lens at f/1.4 has less effective depth of field on a 14 MP crop sensor than it does on a 14 MP full-frame sensor, just because the actual sensing elements are smaller.

Re: Blur (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47267465)

In the other hand, depth of field in a game is the mark of a game with a bunch of dumb tacked-on features that probably just detract from gameplay.

Film grain, lens flare, depth of field and mouse acceleration are the first things I disable before playing any game. If any of those *cannot* be disabled in a game, that's another bad game I'm spared from playing.

Re:Blur (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47267541)

A game's graphics engine would have to be programmed to use depth of field to direct the player's gaze to fit the narrative

The only games I can think of that even try to approach it this way are the ones that fake it by applying a blur mask to everything not around your sight when you're aiming a gun, and you can tell its fake because both the sight and the guy at the other end of the map are sharp.

Re:Blur (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 5 months ago | (#47267049)

Why would anyone want to waste processing power simulating the physical limitations of their eyes?

You may as well render lens flare.

Re:Blur (2)

mikael (484) | about 5 months ago | (#47267137)

It's not just eyes, they also try and replicate the limitations of cameras; lens flare, the Bokeh effect, motion blur, depth-of-field. If a title doesn't have those effects, it's not keeping up to date with everyone else.

Even with the Ultra 64, the Quake version gave you the choice of enabling/disabling mip-mapping. For a while mip-mapping looks cool because everything looks less pixelly. Then when you switch it off, everything looked better because it was sharper.

Re:Blur (2)

TWX (665546) | about 5 months ago | (#47267157)

You may as well render lens flare.

Tell that to J. J. Abrams. I tried cleaning my glasses when I went to see Star Trek but it didn't make it any better.

Of course, I don't think that removing the lens flare would have helped much in that case regardless...

Re:Blur (2)

makapuf (412290) | about 5 months ago | (#47267159)

In cgi, what you spend your time doing is rendering limitations to make it look more "real". Lens flare, dirt, vignette, glare , scratches, de focus, even color grading are artifacts or wear out that make it so more real than clean, 100% sharp plastic images.
We're seeing some elements through non neutral media and are accustomed to this filter. Look at how 100fps movies look like cheap video first. It takes time to change your habits. And if reality isn't a concern ... Well just use flash games.

Re:Blur (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 5 months ago | (#47267167)

Meh adjust the DoF to how you like it, it's not hard and with the latest mod it's trivial to do. But other things like RT shadows, object reflections, higher density of pedestrians on the street? Hell even the particle effects for the water looks amazing with all these settings turned on. I'm not one for conspiracy theories, hell Totalbiscut isn't either but even he hinted in his latest video on it that there's a possibility that PC settings were reduced as to not make the "next gen" aka 2.5-3 year old hardware that they're built on, not look so bad.

Apparently they will do the same to Far Cry 4 (3, Informative)

Payden K. Pringle (3483599) | about 5 months ago | (#47266865)

Apparently they will do the same to Far Cry 4, specifically this article from Forbes about that subject. [forbes.com]

Oh, and that update on Alex Hutchinson's Twitter response? Bollocks.

Re:Apparently they will do the same to Far Cry 4 (1)

The Real Dr John (716876) | about 5 months ago | (#47266931)

I really hope not. Maybe now that this story is making the rounds, they will be less inclined to screw over PC gamers. If they don't handle this correctly before release, it will probably hurt PC sales.

Re:Apparently they will do the same to Far Cry 4 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47267197)

Maybe you nerds should cry more, might lubricate your cunts.

Yerlat, is that you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47267445)

lol.

DLC (5, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | about 5 months ago | (#47266881)

They were probably planning to charge players $50 to activate this 'DLC'.

Re:DLC (1)

Grog6 (85859) | about 5 months ago | (#47267473)

This is probably exactly right; $9.95-$49.95 for a settings tweak.

I'm Happy I haven't bought this yet; I'll have to see how this goes. :)

Re:DLC (1)

Jahoda (2715225) | about 5 months ago | (#47267875)

"Watch_Dogs Remastered Gold Edition"

Probably (4, Insightful)

asmkm22 (1902712) | about 5 months ago | (#47266891)

But not for any nefarious reasons. The depth of field effect, in particular, messes with the gameplay in unexpected ways. Stuff like not being able to find a camera easily because it's more than 20 feet away and blurred out. Or when you're in a gunfight and everyone not right next to you are blurred out. That kind of thing. It's great for screenshots, and very tightly-controlled situations, but I wasn't impressed with how it felt in terms of gameplay.

Re:Probably (1)

TWX (665546) | about 5 months ago | (#47267175)

Maybe they left it in there in case anyone had gotten to market a VR headset with proper eye tracking built by the time the game was released, so that depth of field would follow what the eye was looking at rather than where the center of the screen is pointed. But, that could be me being rather more charitable than they deserve.

Re:Probably (1)

guruevi (827432) | about 5 months ago | (#47267713)

The depth of field has been a problem with the game since release. Things popping in and out, blurry distances. Check out TB's original review of the game; the game is simply bad (it's Ubisoft after all), there are no other quality differences between these higher settings and the original settings

PS3 Version Missing Stuff, Too (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 5 months ago | (#47266897)

All through the almost 2 solid years of following the game, the developers made it clear they intended ALL game features to be consistent across platforms; in fact, one of the last videos they released prior to the game hitting the market was to explain that the only real difference between versions would be graphics quality and population density (ie, the new consoles would have more peds/cars drawn in one place then the previous gen consoles).

Now, I haven't played it on anything but PS3, but one feature from the pre-release advertising is decidedly not in the PS3 version of the game: Team Hacking.

See, in the videos, they showed a multiplayer mode where two teams of four people were tasked with finding a certain item and hacking it before the other team could; the devs even played a demo game to show off the mode.

So, imagine my chagrin when I found out that mode is not, in fact, present in the PS3 version. OK, maybe 'chagrin' isn't the right word - I'm downright disappointed, because that was the one multiplayer mode that looked truly interesting to me.

Anybody played the PS4/Xbone version, and if so, did they leave Team Hacking intact? Or did Ubisoft decide to screw all of their customers, instead of just screwing the ones using previous-gen equipment?

Side Note Spoiler Alert: the climactic ending is decidedly anti-climactic.

No accounting for taste. (5, Insightful)

RyanFenton (230700) | about 5 months ago | (#47266927)

While the unlocked graphics style is certainly better for screenshots, it suffers the problem of highlighting close things, while highly blurring anything at a distance. While more 'realistic', if I were testing the game, I'd definitely suggest disabling this 'feature' by default, as it really can hamper gameplay and discovery. Skyrim EMB mods frequently enter into this territory, and it can be troublesome there too.

The headlight effects are pretty cool though.

The worst middle-finger-to-the-audience has to be the mouse handling though - it's not just mouse smoothing or mouse acceleration, but a particularly nasty form of negative acceleration from capping out the maximum allowed mouse speed, presumably to match controller max speeds. This limitation is a pain in the ass if you're expecting any kind of free or accurate mouse control. I cannot imagine any tester not making this a 'show stopper' bug - it's really, REALLY bad from what I've heard/seen/tried, and can't be fixed so far (lots of half-fixes out there though).

Ryan Fenton

Re:No accounting for taste. (2)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | about 5 months ago | (#47266989)

You can disable depth of field with the new mods.

Re:No accounting for taste. (2)

sweffymo (1760622) | about 5 months ago | (#47267125)

What about things like bloom and shadows? Those hardly make the game unplayable. Not to mention the fact that some of the people who ripped code out of the game found comments like "PC only -- Who cares?" and whatnot.

Re:No accounting for taste. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47267255)

The comment is right, thought. Time and time again Ubisoft shits down people's throats. Yet, their customers always ask for more when a new turd is coming.

Re:No accounting for taste. (1)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | about 5 months ago | (#47267427)

That screen shot is a fake.

Unless there's been an actual source leak, there is no possible way anyone was looking the C++ code for Watch_Dogs to be able to get that screenshot. Which means they couldn't possibly see code comments.

Re:No accounting for taste. (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 5 months ago | (#47267193)

Maybe they limited mouse speed to make it more realistic. People don't have unlimited speed, why should your character?

Re:No accounting for taste. (1)

Nahor (41537) | about 5 months ago | (#47267231)

And your character can kill people with mostly impunity, how come?

We don't want a "realistic" game, there is "real life" for that! "Realistic" should only go so far as to improve the game, not hinder it.

Re:No accounting for taste. (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 5 months ago | (#47268241)

I know, you should totally be able to shoot someone in the head from 1000 metres with a sniper rile immediately after jumping off a 5 metre tall roof that effectively half killed you and popping your head up from behind a wooden box that is some how magically bullet proof.

Re:No accounting for taste. (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 5 months ago | (#47267297)

"People don't have unlimited speed,"

My real name is Barry Allen and I disagree with that statement you insensitive clod!

Re:No accounting for taste. (4, Interesting)

jxander (2605655) | about 5 months ago | (#47267349)

The mouse just used to point and look.

Meatspace analogy time: Look at something on your right. Now look at something on your left. Pretty quick maneuver. Imagine being limited to 30 degrees of rotation per second, making that 180 degree change of direction (from your left to your right) a 6 second operation.

Re:No accounting for taste. (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 5 months ago | (#47268253)

It's not just moving your head though, it's aiming your rifle too.

Re:No accounting for taste. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47268331)

Last I checked, most man-portable rifles aren't attached to mechanical stablization systems that limit one to 30 deg of rotation per second.

Re:No accounting for taste. (2)

Cley Faye (1123605) | about 5 months ago | (#47267579)

While the unlocked graphics style is certainly better for screenshots, it suffers the problem of highlighting close things, while highly blurring anything at a distance. While more 'realistic', if I were testing the game, I'd definitely suggest disabling this 'feature' by default, as it really can hamper gameplay and discovery.

That's pointed out in the end of Total Biscuit's video. There's still stuff to enable/bring back, and stuff to adjust. He plainly says that the depth of view effect might be too much in this version of the "mod".

Re:No accounting for taste. (2)

thejynxed (831517) | about 5 months ago | (#47267695)

They capped total mouse frame movements to the 30 FPS of the console version. This is just lazy porting, again.

Re:No accounting for taste. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47268353)

How does limiting the camera position update rate to 30Hz in any way limit the amount of camera rotation permitted per frame?

My suggestion: (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 5 months ago | (#47267163)

Someone said "Make our gaming console (which is basically a mid-spec gaming PC) look better than a PC."

hum (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 5 months ago | (#47267183)

So a game that already runs like shit on PC had some graphics settings disabled on PC. How is this even a question? Perhaps those settings caused everyone with an ATI BLAHBLAH card to have random crashes and they didn't want to bother fixing it?

And when did we start believing trailers video quality?

Re:hum (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47267305)

The problem is that Ubisoft is hated to the point where deliberately crippling titles (in graphics AND FPS) on the PC looks like it could be a legitimate Ubisoft strategy. Re your theory: there's already stratification in PC gaming with Low/Medium/High/Ultra/etc. presets and auto-detection of hardware. This is about simple changes to a config file that make the game run faster and (arguably) look better.

Re:hum (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47267565)

Most likely it's about a whole bunch of extra time and money that they didn't wanna spend testing different hardware configurations.

Easier to minimize what needs testing by turning off some features that weren't necessary anyway.

Re:hum (2)

sadboyzz (1190877) | about 5 months ago | (#47268099)

If you read some of the comments it seems enabling the graphics also enhances performance at the same time. The theory is that the decision to castrate the PC version was perhaps made at the last minute and they didn't have enough time to test and optimize the crap version.
Disclaimer: this is second hand info as I do not own the game.

Please (5, Insightful)

Hamsterdan (815291) | about 5 months ago | (#47267257)

Graphics? Sound? HDR?

What about *gameplay* (what makes a game worth playing)

Half-Life, DooM, Quake, Quake2, X-Wing series, even some games on my C64. I'm replaying Tie Fighter on an old Ppro200 with an Ensoniq Soundscape Elite soundcard, the gameplay is amazing, the story too. Graphics are crap compared to today's games, but the iMuse music is one of the things that make that game almost perfect.

Dozens of hours of gameplay. (unlike modern games)

Re:Please (5, Interesting)

jxander (2605655) | about 5 months ago | (#47267487)

Check out Total Biscuit's YouTube Channel "WTF is..."

He does first impressions and mainly focuses on smaller indy titles (not exclusively, but primarily) Smaller budget games can't just throw "SUPER MEGA REALISTIC AMAZING POLYGRAPHICS" and have to rely on creativity, story and gameplay instead.

Re:Please (1)

Grog6 (85859) | about 5 months ago | (#47267519)

I played Q2:Ground Zero for ~6 hours on my lan last weekend; It's still the best for gameplay. :)

We do a "give all" at the start, and one per each kill you make; It keeps the game moving. :)

And I have my own skins, that I made; something not seen since UT2003.

The "Catholic Schoolgirl" bot in UT2k3 was the best programming I've seen, lol.

Re:Please (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47267603)

Dozens of hours of gameplay. (unlike modern games)

My hours played on TF2 seems to disagree.

Re:Please (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47267887)

I still enjoyed the quake(world) team fortress more.

Re:Please (2)

Cley Faye (1123605) | about 5 months ago | (#47267613)

Graphics are certainly not the *key* point for a good game, but saying that they are not relevant would be crazy.
From your examples, Half-Life was great, but the graphical difference from HL1 to HL2 certainly contributed to improve the experience. There's nothing saying that we can have either good gameplay XOR good graphics. Both at the same time are nice too.

Playing PC Games (0)

apharmdq (219181) | about 5 months ago | (#47267381)

If I'm going to play a PC game, one of my absolute requirements is that it is PC-exclusive, or that at least it was PC-exclusive for the initial release. If this isn't the case, then no matter how enticing the game is, no matter how much I'm drooling in anticipation, I won't give it a second glance.
Somehow, I've managed to get by. Not once have I regretted missing out on a game that hasn't been PC-exclusive. And as an added bonus, since I only have so much time to play games in my life, and there are so many of them, this requirement brings it down to a manageable number. (No, I don't pirate them out of "protest." If your game doesn't meet my requirements, I'm not going to PLAY it.)

Other requirements for me to bother playing a game:
- No DRM (Dota 2 is the sole exception, since it's free to play, and meets the following requirement)
- Native Linux Version available (that runs well)

So thanks, Watch Dogs, for reaffirming my principles.

Re:Playing PC Games (1)

asmkm22 (1902712) | about 5 months ago | (#47267671)

You must not play many PC games outside of the niche indie market.

Re:Playing PC Games (1)

tepples (727027) | about 5 months ago | (#47267783)

Does a working Android version count as a Linux version or as a failure to be "PC exclusive"?

Remember when (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47267531)

MDK2 for PC had the shadows gimped out to make the Dreamcast look superior?

PAID FOR BY SEGA !1!1!1!![/conspiracy]

Re:Remember when (1)

uCallHimDrJ0NES (2546640) | about 5 months ago | (#47267909)

Crazy? For realsies? I have both versions. Now I must know!

Last Ubisoft game I will ever buy (5, Interesting)

dave562 (969951) | about 5 months ago | (#47267621)

I was really looking forward to the game and pre-ordered it for PC. My experience has been horrible. I am running an i7-960 (8 cores, 3.20ghz), 12GB of RAM and 2 GeForce 660s in SLI (4GB of total video RAM). I have a dedicated OS drive, a dedicated games drive and a dedicated pagefile drive. By way of background, I run ~1400VMs for a living. The VMs support a number of SaaS applications that are sensitive to transaction latency. I tune applications for performance for a living.

The game runs like crap on my PC, even on medium settings. It reads files from all over the place. It pulls textures out of the temp directory. It pulls data files out of the game directory. Even with over 4GB of FREE (not Available) RAM, it still manages to make the system do a steady 2MB/s of paging.

The game play is horrible. The driving is clunky. The interface scheme was obviously designed for a game pad. The multi-player is embarassing. The net code is crap. With 6 people, there were serious rubber banding issues. That was with a very small slice of the map. It is not like they had to render the entire thing. In a good 50% of the multi-player games I was in, there was at least one invulnerable person. That leads me to believe that the code is obviously pretty easy to exploit.

The game concept was a good one, but the execution was horrible. I have learned my lesson. In this day and age, everything is in beta. Developers are okay with releasing incomplete products and patching them later. I spent my youth couriering warez and getting a free ride. Now that I can afford games, I have been willingly purchasing them to support the studios. I cannot do it anymore. They just release crap products. They are not even worth pirating.

Re:Last Ubisoft game I will ever buy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47267869)

. Developers are okay

No managers are....

Re:Last Ubisoft game I will ever buy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47268243)

You do latency tuning for a living and aren't running on SSDs? And a pagefile disk... might as well have that on a RAM disk if you actually care about latency.

I'm on last mission on the PC Version. (1)

BrookHarty (9119) | about 5 months ago | (#47267749)

I'm rather enjoyed the story line, but the last mission is hard, they throw all the cops at you.

But does this game have replay value like gta5? It might, but I doubt I will continuing playing after a few more online skirmishes and finish this last mission.
So was the game worth 60 dollars? I have over 30 hours of gameplay for 60 bux, does seem expensive to me but it was enjoyable.

Problem solved! (3, Insightful)

Jahoda (2715225) | about 5 months ago | (#47267865)

I just buy all of their games once a year for $2.99 on Steam and then never play them.

DLC (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 months ago | (#47268075)

Maybe they noticed too late that they could sell "enhanced graphics" as a DLC?

Re:DLC (1)

Mikawo (1897602) | about 5 months ago | (#47268385)

Well, the list price is the same no matter what platform. I think console gamers might get butthurt if they spent the same amount of money and on another platform the game looks a lot better. There is something to be said about delivering a somewhat consistent experience across different platforms. Getting that extra quality through a DLC doesn't seem all that unreasonable.

Halo syndrome (4, Insightful)

Trogre (513942) | about 5 months ago | (#47268351)

They were probably paid lots of money by a certain monopolist to cripple the PC version so as to not make their XBox version look so bad in side-by-side comparisons. The lowest common denominator wins again.

Title explanation: Recall that Halo for PC was never released. A pity because it looked quite good. What eventually came out on the PC was a low-quality port of the XBox version.

Are some people really this stupid? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47268359)

Seeing so many people going "hurr it was a good move because DoF looks like ass" in everywhere from imageboards to comments sections like this is really making me believe in Ubisoft damage control. Just in case anybody that has said that is actually just dumb and not a shill: you can not only dial back DoF to whatever intensity you want, but you can turn it off entirely without affecting the rest of the many things that were disabled/gimped by Ubisoft.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?